SHERLY JOHN Vs. B D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Preliminary Hearing Not.ices were ordered re. Rule. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 agreed to argue the matter on merits. They were accordingly heard.

(2.) The Bangalore Development Authority (the B.D.A.), the 1st respondent, has formed a layout of residential sites in Rajajinagar area of Bangalore City, and the scheme is known as West of Chord Road, II Stage, The plan of the layout showing therein the formation of sites is at Annexure-X produced along with I.A.I, and application filed by the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to raise additional grounds. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been allotted site No.1452 and that site No. 1451 is allotted to the 2nd respondent. The site allotted to the petitioner is marked in red ink at Annexure-X.

(3.) According to the petitioner, all the sites in that area, as shown at Anntxure-X, are of the same dimension each measuring 40 feet north to south and 60 feet east to west. This means each site has a width of 40 feet only facing the road i.e., the 13th main road, It is stated by the petitioner that in the possession certificate issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, allotting site No. 1451 on lease-cum-sale basis, a mistake has crept in, in that, instead of mentioning the dimensions 40 feet north to south and 60 feet east to west it is shown therein that that site measures 60 feet north to south and 40 feet east to west. According to the petitioner the certificate of grant issued in her favour allotting site No. 1452 shows the correct measurement. The complaint of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, taking advantage of this mistake that has crept in in the description given in the possession certificate issued to him, had been trying to encroach upon a portion of her site, and has been creating trouble to her and has been preventing her from proceeding with the construction of a building on her site.. It appears, she has approached the 1st respondent to recall the possession certificate issued to the 2nd respondent and to rectify the mistake crept therein. Her grievance is that the B.D.A., has not been taking any action at all. It is also stated that both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have filed suits against each other and they are pending. Her apprehension is that the civil court will proceed, perhaps, on the basis of the possession certificates issued to the parties, and that, in the circumstances, the B.D.A., in the ends of justice has to rectify the mistake referred to above. She states that since it is not taking any action even though repeatedly requested she had filed this petition for a writ of mandamus against the B.D.A., directing it to recall the possession certificate issued to the 2nd respondent concerning site No.1451 and to rectify the mistake crept therein.